Codex vs. Claude Code (Today)
Every programmer has their favorite language. Some prefer Python, while others swear by TypeScript1. Many teams build their apps on Postgres, while others use MySQL. These choices are often flame-war bait for programmers with strong opinions, but most of these decisions are centered around pragmatism, priorities, and tradeoffs. They’re reflections of different working styles, rather than moral statements.
All of this applies to the choices people make when they decide whether to use Claude Code or Codex.
Before we continue, I need to make a disclaimer: This post is about the Claude Code and Codex, on December 22, 2025. Everything in AI changes so fast that I have almost no expectations about the validity of these statements in a year, or probably even 3-6 months from now.
I also must emphasize that both Codex and Claude Code are already superhuman developers. I don’t say that solely based on the quality of outputs from Opus 4.5 and codex-5.2-high, but in how they work. Codex and Claude Code sometimes arrive at a solution in ways that almost feel alien to how we think about coding, much like AlphaGo’s Move 37.
I keep up with every AI tool I can so I can teach AI to anyone and everyone, but it’s becoming more of a necessity for all software developers. When it comes to coding I’ve mostly settled into using Codex for “coding”, and I put coding in quotes because the process is very different than writing code by hand. I spend anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours writing prompts and generating context for Codex, then the task runs for 15-20 minutes while I context-switch to something else entirely. When I come back, I’ve got somewhere between a day and a week’s worth of code waiting for me.
But I still use Claude Code a lot. The coding environment they’ve built is exceptional. Much like Peter Steinberger describes Claude Code as his computer, I delegate all sorts of tasks to Claude Code. I’ll use Skills to transcribe videos to mp3s, generate a dark mode color palette for my website, or quickly prototype an idea from a blog post.
Why People Love Codex
When I need something done and done right, I call on Codex. The reason is simple: the results are unbelievably good for me. And that’s because of how I work. By investing time into context engineering and context plumbing, I’m able to stay hands-off-keyboard for much longer.
Having long-running tasks might sound like a drawback, but it’s just a different way to work. When I send Codex off to do a task that takes 20 minutes, I switch my focus entirely. I’ll open Figma to do some design work, write my newsletter, or open another terminal and prompt Codex with some server work while the first terminal is chugging along on some client work.
I’d rather have everything take longer and generate results that I don’t have to fix than be involved in the process steering AI to success. That’s the working style that suits me best. OpenAI’s latest models deliver better results than the latest Claude models with less need to be in the loop. So while that remains true, I’ll mostly stick with Codex.
Why People Love Claude Code
And that brings me to my theory of why many engineers prefer Claude Code. Claude makes you feel more like you’re doing engineering work — and surprise — engineers love engineering work. Source: I’m an engineer.
Claude has a lot of knobs to turn. You’ve got your CLAUDE.md, Skills, Agents, MCP, slash commands, and so much more. Codex has similar features, but it tends to produce high-quality results out of the box. Claude on the other hand works best when you finely tune those knobs, and Anthropic really encourages you to do so in their developer relations and marketing.
This is a perfect match for engineers who love configuring their environments. I can’t tell you how many full days of my life I’ve lost trying out new Xcode features or researching VS Code extensions that in practice make me 0.05% more productive.
Personally — and I do emphasize this is a personal decision — I‘d rather write a well-spec’d plan and go do something else for 15 minutes. Claude’s Plan Mode is exceptional, and that‘s why so many people fall in love with Claude once they try it.2
Many engineers would rather be hands-on and guide the software development process step by step — which is very understandable when you consider what flow state looks like. Claude will ask you a ton of questions and interrupt itself more frequently to make sure it’s not heading in the wrong direction. That really makes you feel like you’re doing heads-down engineering work.
So Should I Use Codex or Claude?
I think back to coworkers I’ve had over the years, and their varying preferences. Some people couldn’t start coding until they had a checklist of everything they needed to do to solve a problem. Others would dive right in and prototype to learn about the space they would be operating in.
The tools we use to build are moving fast and hard to keep up with, but we’ve been blessed with a plethora of choices. The good news is that there is no wrong choice when it comes to AI. That’s why I don’t dismiss people who live in Claude Code, even though I personally prefer Codex.
The tool you choose should match how you work, not the other way around. If you use Claude, I’d suggest trying Codex for a week to see if maybe you’re a Codex person and didn’t know it. And if you use Codex, I’d recommend trying Claude Code for a week to see if maybe you’re more of a Claude person than you thought.
Maybe you’ll discover your current approach isn’t the best fit for you. Maybe you won’t. But I’m confident you’ll find that every AI tool has its strengths and weaknesses, and the only way to discover what they are is by using them.